3 ms·
What makes you think that taxes aren't already being paid in the foreign jurisdictions? This is a big part of the disconnect: if you (say, as Apple) sell a pho
by Nrsolis 11y ago
What makes you think that taxes aren't already being paid in the foreign jurisdictions?
This is a big part of the disconnect: if you (say, as Apple) sell a phone in Munich, you're paying the VAT tax in that country already.
Generally speaking, when you take the profits from your German sales back to the USA, in many (most, save a few exception) cases, you're going to pay corporate taxes on those profits now that they are repatriated back in the USA. So companies are incentivized to keep those profits in overseas jurisdictions to defer the US tax and reinvest in their overseas operations. Considering how much of their actual sales come from overseas, it's no wonder that they pursue this strategy.
EVEN IF a company wanted to be a "good US corporate citizen" and pay more taxes to the government, they'd be at a financial disadvantage to overseas companies doing business in the USA because THOSE companies DON'T have to pay tax on their overseas profits. That's why you see all of these companies set up in "corporate tax havens" that don't tax a single penny of offshore income. For one thing: it's damn easy to do international business through these companies because you effectively have a neutral ground from the perspective of finance. For another: you save money on taxes, allowing you to offer better terms to your customers and partners.
This kind of stuff only matters to the biggest corporations with multinational operations because the regulatory minefield associated with keeping track of laws and regs in lots of different countries is a nightmare and only a few top accounting firms have the talent to master it. Another reason why the law of unintended consequences shifts the tax burden to the little guy: he's not big enough to care about shifting his income overseas. When you create incentives by way of regulatory/tax arbitrage, you make it worth the while of a big multinational to invest the time and effort structure their deals so they take place in offshore jurisdictions.
- tracker1 11y agoThis isn't money earned over seas, it's money earned in the U.S. then shifted overseas... Results from a few simple searches. Yes, it does only matter to the largest corporations, and investment firms which account for a huge percentage of wealth that further stretches an imbalance in property/wealth where fewer than 100 people have more than half the world's population combined. I'm all for being able to make insane amounts of money, but there are limits to what is good for greater society and having underutilized holdings overseas for the simple purpose of tax avoidance isn't good for anyone. The money isn't being invested to earn more, and it isn't being spent to improve the economy. It's wasted in a corporate setting.. it should be re-invested, spent or dispersed to the share holders, who should then pay income taxes (baring a VAT/tariff system in place to replace it) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/business/apple-avoided-billions-in-taxes-congressional-panel-says.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/business/apple-avoided-bil... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/apple-avoids-60-billion-in-taxes-by-keeping-money-overseas-report-says http://motherboard.vice.com/read/apple-avoids-60-billion-in-... http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/10/apple-google-microsoft-hold-more-than-336b-overseas-via-legal-tax-loopholes/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/10/apple-google-microso...